 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Loza v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.11/13/1997
as either rejected as irrelevant pursuant to CRE 401 or that any relevance was outweighed by the prejudicial impact under CRE 403. Either such determination is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and absent a showing that the trial court's decision was manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, and unfair, it will be upheld. People v. Moya, 899 P.2d 212 (Colo. App. 1994).
In light of the circumstances of this case and the rationale of the trial court, we conclude that it was well within its discretion in rejecting the evidence.
B.
Insured's motion in limine also sought the exclusion of the amount of settlement of the personal injury claim and the other motorist's claims on the grounds that its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect. We conclude there is no reversible error in granting the motion.
Again, this issue is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. People v. Moya, supra. However, a division of this court held in Peiffer v. State Farm, supra, that it was an abuse of discretion to exclude evidence of settlement amounts received by an insured when the insured alleges emotional distress as an element of damage in a bad faith claim. Addressing the issue for purposes of guidance on remand, the division held that the amounts paid to the insured, and presumably available to the insured to pay medical bills, should have been admitted as they related directly to the reasonableness of insured's claim of emotional distress.
Here, State Farm was permitted to introduce evidence that the insured had "resolved" those claims, that she had paid all of the TMD treatment expenses apportioned by State Farm, that she had received all of the recommended TMD treatment, and that her credit rating had not been damaged by State Farm's failure to pay. Thus, State Farm was able to show that insured had paid the bills from funds available to her. The fact that the jury was not advised as to the amount of money available to her for that purpose, or its source, does not require reversal.
IV.
State Farm finally argues that it was highly prejudicial for the trial court to instruct the jury that 1) State Farm was obligated to pay the disputed bills and 2) the court had entered judgment on insured's breach of contract claim. State Farm also argues that the subsequent judgment for the insured for treble damages and bad faith must be reversed because the trial court erred in entering judgment on insured's breach of contract claim. We disagree.
Initially, inasmuch as the latter half of State Farm's contention on this point appears to repeat its earlier argument that partial summary judgment should not have been granted, we have already rejected that argument.
A jury instruction should not be given if it diverts the jury from actual factual disputes. Although an instruction which recites all of the elements of a cause of action is proper, an instruction should not require proof of matters not in controversy. Koehn v. R.D. Werner Co., 809 P.2d 1045 (Colo. App. 1990).
The fact that State Farm breached its insurance contract with the insured is an element of the bad faith claim. To have not instructed the jury that State Farm's breach and the amount it owed had already been determined would have required the jury to consider the remaining issues with little or no guidance. Under such circumstances, the possibility would exist that the jury might reach a verdict contrary to the trial court's judgment.
Therefore, we see no error in instructing the jury that State Farm had breached the insurance contract and the amount of benefits owing as a result of that breach.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|